Wednesday, August 20, 2014

A light rain began in the top of the fifth inning, with the Cubs leading 2-0… Then the drizzle turned violent… The Cubs grounds crew had to act swiftly. In their haste, they rolled out the tarp at a bad angle, causing large portions of the infield to be as poorly covered as Jane Fonda in “Barbarella.”...

It rained all of 15 minutes but the damage was done. The next four hours involved more activity than an ant farm, with several dozen bags of clay dumped and spread over the infield to no avail…. the last 90 minutes of the delay involved one man and one rake… After a final check of the field and meeting with both managers just after 1 a.m. Chicago time, [crew chief Hunter] Wendelstedt waved off the game…

Rule 4.12… covers suspensions. There are only six conditions by which a regulation (official) game can be suspended rather than called. One of the conditions describes a “light failure or malfunction of a mechanical field device under control of the home club. (Mechanical field device shall include automatic tarpaulin or water removal equipment).”

The problem: the Cubs don’t use a mechanical tarp, and precedent had been set on July 23, when the Yankees couldn’t get their manual tarp on the field in time following a sudden rainstorm and were awarded a 2-1 victory over the Texas Rangers after 4 ½ innings.

Here’s one more snippet from the official rules, under the notes section of Rule 4.12: “If a game is halted by weather, and subsequent light failure or an intervening curfew or time limit prevents its resumption, the game shall not be a suspended game. If a game is halted by light failure, and weather or field conditions prevent its resumption, the game shall not be a suspended game. A game can only be considered a suspended game if stopped for any of the six reasons specified in Rule 4.12(a).”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Worth pointing out that these were genuinely unusual circumstances. The rain was exceptionally heavy but also very localized; it didn't rain a drop at my apartment in Rogers Park, just four miles or so up Clark Street. And it only rained for 10-15 minutes anyway. It's easy to see how the umpiring and grounds crews were caught off guard and how the mistakes were consequently made. It really only looks bad with the benefit of hindsight.

That said ... I understand how rules work and why we need them. But this is the kind of situation where the rules just make everyone look bad. If the Commissioner's Office had said, hey, these are unusual circumstances and let's call a suspension for the good of the league, I don't think anyone would have batted an eye or argued the logic of the decision. Sometimes the rules just need to be set aside when everyone can agree that they plainly don't make much sense.

They need to change that rule so that a team can't gain an advantage when their own crew screws up.

They just need to eliminate the mechanical part of the rule to that covering any failure. I don't think having one set of rules governing suspensions when the home team is leading and another when the visitors are in front is terribly good policy.

If the Commissioner's Office had said, hey, these are unusual circumstances and let's call a suspension for the good of the league, I don't think anyone would have batted an eye or argued the logic of the decision. Sometimes the rules just need to be set aside when everyone can agree that they plainly don't make much sense.

Yes. You got your letter of the rule, and you got your spirit of the rule.

unrelated but the cubs have a very tough schedule the rest of the way. I would be thrilled if they played .500 ball down the stretch.
2 left against SF 3 against Baltimore, 6 against the reds, 7 against St Louis, 6 against Pit, 6 against the Brewers, 3 against Toronto and 4 against LA.

That said ... I understand how rules work and why we need them. But this is the kind of situation where the rules just make everyone look bad. If the Commissioner's Office had said, hey, these are unusual circumstances and let's call a suspension for the good of the league, I don't think anyone would have batted an eye or argued the logic of the decision. Sometimes the rules just need to be set aside when everyone can agree that they plainly don't make much sense.

I don't know why games aren't suspended in a situation like this. Unless it's the end of the season between two teams out of the race. I hate the shenanigans when one team is delaying and the other is hurrying because of the rain. I have no problem with the home team keeping the gate.

I imagine I'm projecting, but I wonder if there's any set of rules as poorly understood in baseball by even its biggest fans than the rules governing suspended/postponed/"game called after 5 inning" weather incidents.

"The protest is based on the fact that the Giants were told everything possible would be done to finish a game that was delayed four and a half hours, and the Giants believed that wasn't ultimately the case."

"The protest is based on the fact that the Giants were told everything possible would be done to finish a game that was delayed four and a half hours, and the Giants believed that wasn't ultimately the case."

It's grounds to be pissed, but I don't think being misled has ever been grounds for protest.

"The protest is based on the fact that the Giants were told everything possible would be done to finish a game that was delayed four and a half hours, and the Giants believed that wasn't ultimately the case."

Well, the Sox were finished with their game at the Cell, and it hadn't rained there. Everyone should have just hopped on the Red Line and finished up down there.

It's grounds to be pissed, but I don't think being misled has ever been grounds for protest.

About the only thing being done for the last hour of the delay was one lonely guy out on the field with a rake. So not "everything possible" was being done. Now maybe the field was so unplayable that the grounds crew thought they'd done all they could do, but by appearances, they'd given up and nothing was forthcoming from the Cubs or the umps.

About the only thing being done for the last hour of the delay was one lonely guy out on the field with a rake. So not "everything possible" was being done. Now maybe the field was so unplayable that the grounds crew thought they'd done all they could do, but by appearances, they'd given up and nothing was forthcoming from the Cubs or the umps.

Again, that's not the grounds for a protest, which is limited to a misapplication of the rules by the umpires. Unless you can point to that happening, I don't see how the Giants have a case.

I'm just a few blocks from the park and it was a crazy storm - it had been raining a bit on and off throughout the day, but looked like it had completely cleared up by late afternoon. The storm late evening/early night just came out of nowhere like a ton of bricks - one minute it looks like it might sprinkle, then it started sprinkling, then a hurricane complete with deluge out of nowhere... then it was done.

It was one of the weirdest storms I've ever seen in a year/summer that's had a lot of them.

From a quick glance at the rules, I guess they could argue a violation of 4.15(b) or 4.16:

4.15
A game may be forfeited to the opposing team when a team --
(a) Fails to appear upon the field, or being upon the field, refuses to start play within five minutes after the umpire has called ?Play? at the appointed hour for beginning the game, unless such delayed appearance is, in the umpire?s judgment, unavoidable;
(b) Employs tactics palpably designed to delay or shorten the game;
(c) Refuses to continue play during a game unless the game has been suspended or terminated by the umpire;
(d) Fails to resume play, after a suspension, within one minute after the umpire has called ?Play?;
(e) After warning by the umpire, willfully and persistently violates any rules of the game;
(f) Fails to obey within a reasonable time the umpire?s order for removal of a player from the game;
(g) Fails to appear for the second game of a doubleheader within 20 minutes after the close of the first game unless the umpire-in-chief of the first game shall have extended the time of the intermission.

4.16
A game shall be forfeited to the visiting team if, after it has been suspended, the order of the umpire to groundskeepers respecting preparation of the field for resumption of play are not complied with.

The strangest story of all in this narrative of forfeit games is the one the Boston Red Sox played at Washington August 15, 1941. Rain began in the fifth inning and increased so that the umpire halted the game at the end of the seventh. The players went to their locker rooms and the umpire ordered the infield covered. The ground crew couldn't be found, even with the help of the Washington management. The rain came down for another 30 minutes before stopping, leaving the field a soggy mess. The umpires saw that play was impossible and called the game with Washington the winner 6 to 3 in seven innings. The next day, August 16, Boston protested the game to the American League office where William Harridge, the league president, took it under advisement and everybody waited. Then, on August 28, almost two weeks after the game was played, Harridge issued a statement saying that the game of August 15, between Boston and Washington, was forfeited to the Red Sox. He called it "the case of the missing ground-keeper" and said the home team was responsible for the care of the grounds and having a ground crew available and under the orders of the umpires.

The only justification for awarding the Giants the victory would be willful or neglectful dereliction of duty by Cubs staff or management. No one who was at the game could reasonably accuse them of that. The storm and the wind came up like crazy virtually out of nowhere. When the tarp went on crooked, and they couldn't move it, they rushed to bring out auxiliary tarps. Those turned out to be a problem because when the water was dumped off the big tarp, instead of flowing into the outfield drains, it slid along the auxiliary tarps and back onto the infield. Thus, their extra attempts to save the infield ended up dong far more harm than good. Clownshoes for sure, and funny to watch, but in no way was it willful or negligent.

When the tarp went on crooked, and they couldn't move it, they rushed to bring out auxiliary tarps. Those turned out to be a problem because when the water was dumped off the big tarp, instead of flowing into the outfield drains, it slid along the auxiliary tarps and back onto the infield.

That sounds like poor training, which is potentially negligent. The msifire on the primary tarp aside, there must be a way to put down and remove the auxiliary tarps that doesn't result in the runoff being dumped on the infield.

4.19
PROTESTING GAMES.
Each league shall adopt rules governing procedure for protesting a game, when a manager claims that an umpire?s decision is in violation of these rules. No protest shall ever be permitted on judgment decisions by the umpire. In all protested games, the decision of the League President shall be final.

There haven't been league presidents for 15 years, so, technically, no protest is ever legal.

It's official. I just read the MLB press release, which goes on to say that the reason that Torre didn't simply grant the Giants an outright victory is that Hunter Wendelstedt believed the Cubs ground crew made a good faith effort, they weren't intentionally trying to screw things up.

I think this is the right call, by the way, even by the letter of the rule. It all hinges on the definition of the word "mechanical," which is NOT (as many people seem to believe) synonymous with "electronic." In my view the tarp roller is clearly a mechanical device and it clearly did not operate properly.

Retrosheet has a page listing resumed protest games, including the 1986 one and the Pine Tar Game. Barry Bonds had his fourth career home run in the last successfully protested game. It was before the suspended part.

The first base umpire ... immediately ruled the ball in play, but the other base umpire signaled to Northey that it was a homer, so Northey slowed up. He was ruled out at the plate, and the Cards protested the game saying Northey had been deceived by the umpire and would have scored if he had not slowed down.

In the bottom of the ninth, the Dodgers scored three runs to win the game before the protest by a 3-2 score. NL President Ford Frick, who later became Commissioner, upheld the protest and awarded Northey a home run. However, he did not order the game resumed in the top of the ninth with the Cards ahead 3-0, which would have been the normal procedure called for by the rules. He allowed the Dodgers' runs to stand and ruled the game a 3-3 tie. (We can only speculate on what he would have decided if the Dodgers had hit a homer in the bottom of the ninth and scored four runs.) All the records counted except for the pitchers' win and loss. The game was replayed in its entirety as part of a doubleheader on August 18 that the Dodgers won.

For Christ's sake, Harv, relax; post 47 wasn't directed at you, and it certainly wasn't questioning Jaffe (I know who he is, thanks. I've met him, though it's been quite a number of years.); you'll note that I posted a followup that elaborated on his point re. the last suspended game. I was asking generally where people heard about the suspension of the Cubs/Giants game, because I wasn't able to find any details about it or the reasons for it. Lighten up. (You needn't have posted the same thing once, let alone twice.)

And yes, I think this was the right thing to do. That said, this portion of the email I received from the Cubs confuses me:

Ticket holders from the Tuesday, August 19 game may redeem their tickets for tomorrow’s 4:05 p.m. game and remain for the regularly-scheduled 7:05 p.m. contest against the Giants. Ticket holders for tomorrow’s 7:05 p.m. game may also attend the 4:05 p.m. game from their ticketed seats. Gates will open at 3:05 p.m. CT.

How the hell's that gonna work? Just how many no-shows are they counting on for the two games?

Well, I'll be consistent with what I said above - I think this is a really bad decision. As far as I'm concerned, you've really got to do some serious, back-breaking gyrations to fit what happened under Rule 4.12a(3).

Ticket holders from the Tuesday, August 19 game may redeem their tickets for tomorrow’s 4:05 p.m. game and remain for the regularly-scheduled 7:05 p.m. contest against the Giants. Ticket holders for tomorrow’s 7:05 p.m. game may also attend the 4:05 p.m. game from their ticketed seats. Gates will open at 3:05 p.m. CT.

How the hell's that gonna work? Just how many no-shows are they counting on for the two games?

I imagine there's a great deal of overlap between the two. There must not be more than a small minority of ticket holders who have tickets to only one game or the other.

Well, I'll be consistent with what I said above - I think this is a really bad decision. As far as I'm concerned, you've really got to do some serious, back-breaking gyrations to fit what happened under Rule 4.12a(3).

I certainly respect this position, but I also think God makes a good point about the flexibility of the term "mechanical" (and really, who am I to argue with God).

3. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 20, 2014 at 09:04 PM (#4775908)

Ticket holders from the Tuesday, August 19 game may redeem their tickets for tomorrow’s 4:05 p.m. game and remain for the regularly-scheduled 7:05 p.m. contest against the Giants. Ticket holders for tomorrow’s 7:05 p.m. game may also attend the 4:05 p.m. game from their ticketed seats. Gates will open at 3:05 p.m. CT.

How the hell's that gonna work? Just how many no-shows are they counting on for the two games?

Eh, that happens. I have some travel issues as well as some personal ones but I'm navigating those around baseball, because, well I spent too many months inside with a broken leg over a terrible winter. Hope to catch up at some point.

please rein in the 'lighten up' commentary when posters are trying to be responsive.

Fair enough, but you misunderstood both what question I was asking and who I was directing it to, and I perceived your "Jaffe's not just some putz" commentary (and the two posts in succession that said essentially the same thing, which struck me as less "responsive" than of the piling on/"see-I-was-right" nature) to be condescending. If no such condescension was intended, I'll retract any snark from my end and call it a wash. Seems we weren't communicating on the same wavelength, regardless. **shrugs**

The idea that a tarp roll isn't mechanical is crazy. What is it, if not?

It doesn't appear that simple machine was what baseball had in mind when they wrote the rule (giving examples as light failure, automatic tarp or water removal equipment). Moreover, given MLB's description of events, it doesn't sound like a mechanical failure, more like operator error resulting in the tarp not working as expected. And, by allowing the definition to include anything relating to mechanical operations, rather than specific mechanical failure as written in 4.12, you've probably opened a pretty big gray area on these things (say, the tarp jams for 30 seconds, causing a minor delay in getting the field covered - is that enough to uphold a protest).

To me, if this were a game between the Phillies and the Cubs, baseball tosses out the protest immediately. But they felt sorry for the Giants, and thus went looking for an existing rule to bend to accommodate the Giants.

There's no material difference* between what happened here and what happened a few weeks ago in New York. A quick storm popped up unexpectedly, the grounds crew was unable to successfully get the tarp down to cover the full field despite their best efforts, and the game was unplayable as a result. The real difference was that in that case the team that won the game was the one with playoff aspirations, whereas here it was the team which lost. Of course, if you look at the entire playoff picture, the effect is the same.

I would support a rule change whereby all failures, whether mechanical, human or act of God types, would result in a suspended game. Hell, I wouldn't oppose a rule change that eliminated all rain-shortened games.

I don't support day-after stretching of the rulebook in this one instance because one team got a bad break. And that looks like what happened here.

* And yes, Texas didn't protest, in part because there were no reasonable grounds to protest there either.

It's a mess outside today - been raining nearly all morning. There looks to be a quick break in the near future until 3pm, when the storms are supposed to start back up and continue throughout the night.

Or, what if they get a couple of batters in, then the skies open up again (as Moses noted, it really was miserable this morning) and wash out the rest of the day's play? Does that make it an official game (because it was weather causing the delay, not mechanical issues)?

It was the old "joking/not joking" bit. It does seem like the logical outcome, even if it seems pretty absurd at the same time given the circumstances.

Also, scheduling becomes a real issue at this time of year between two teams in different divisions, especially when one's on the West Coast. I'm too lazy/disinterested to check the two teams' schedules now, but it seems unlikely that SF would be all that excited about a makeup semi-doubleheader in Chicago even if the two teams still have matching off days.

Actually, now I decided to look up the schedules anyway, and both teams have September 4 off. The Giants are traveling between Colorado and Detroit, and the Cubs are in the middle of a homestand. Both have another off day scheduled (separately) within a week. So that wouldn't be too onerous, as far as these things go.

Or, what if they get a couple of batters in, then the skies open up again (as Moses noted, it really was miserable this morning) and wash out the rest of the day's play? Does that make it an official game (because it was weather causing the delay, not mechanical issues)?

I'd have to think the answer's "yes," isn't it? I mean, the Giants got their protest upheld, they got their rain date, and the rain date resulted in weather that washed things out at the point where play stopped (at which point it was an official game). What other result could there be?

I don't know. I can see an argument that if the entire thing got washed out, then the game was never resumed, and thus it has to be finished later. But as soon as you throw a pitch, the game has been resumed and should be subject to the same rules governing rain-shortened contests.

Apologies to the Giants (who I would prefer to see come out of the NL West), but I so hope this happens.